Posts
UPDATE
Sorry if I confuse you folks, I actualy confuse myself sometimes.
It appears I missed this, thanks to Robert for the reminder. See his comments below. My mind goes blank sometimes. I now remember reading about these on Ian's blog sometime last month."The 1st class and 2nd class Large booklets of 4 are now available with code MA10. First seen at the 2010 London exhibition".These have the the same change (as below) to the code and the position of the wavy text is one row down from the previous 2009 printings .
Ian continues "FOYAL has been replaced with ROYAL in the 2010 stamps, and the line below it now incorporates the origin code, MAIL now reading MFIL."
This now gives us 3 different stamps to date with type IIa positioning . We expect the large second class business sheet to turn up soon showing this new MA10 date and changed text.
(LMBIL)
ORIGINAL REPORT
Ian Billings has returned from his mid summer break ( we hope you have had a relaxing time Ian) and straight away informs us,via his blog, of another new Machin discovery."The 1st class gold Large Letter Business Sheet has now been reprinted with the MA10 code. The printing date on the sheet header is 09/03/10."
What is also interesting is the code position has changed to that of a new type. Similar to type 11, but the wording LMBIL forms at the rear of the central cross, rather than on the previous printing where YBLMAIL forms from the centre of the cross.
Should this be listed as code type 1V or type 11A? If we are to use this coding system in catalogues and lists I will leave it to the experts to decide.
It was suggested to me that perhaps code 1, code 2 code 3 code 4 etc may be better. I personally think we should leave this to Mr Deegam, he seems to think ahead and has a proven track record with a good grasp of nomenclatures.
You can view my previous posts on the different types of codes here. and here
6 comments:
The code had already adopted this new position in the two books of 4 x 1st or 2nd Large found at London 2010 (8 May), except of course here the code is B rather than F as in the books. Hopefully, the word 'MAIL' will now become standard for the source code on Large stamps as it has been all along for the standard size definitives.
Rob, I was not only refering to the change in the actual code lettering but the position of the wavy text in relation to the top of the diadem
Ian pehaps describes this better than I did.
This is another change to the source code, as the previous Business Sheets had (RO)YBLMAIL in the top line at the top right.
The code on this new Large 1st class stamp is one line lower.
This is precisely what I meant by "new position", not the change in the code letter itself. There have only been five 1st class Large stamps with the iridescent overprint and not counting the issue in counter sheets which didn't have a hidden code, this is the third different word to contain the code - as you say, in two different ROYALs on two successive lines behind the diadem for B(usiness) and F(our) and now in MAIL on the line below these two previous ones. As I stated, the new position on the business sheet printed in 2010 had already been used on the books of 4 found at London 2010.
My second point was therefore to suppose that RM have abandoned the use of the word ROYAL to hide their codes in in favour of MAIL as has always been the case on standard size stamps (and always in the word MAIL in the same position).
I'm not convinced that a Type of code is needed.
The code itself is unique if you take the whole word, rather than just the key letter.
Likewise the different types of paperclip die cut has been analysed in the extreme. Continuous and Split are two, the one with both is a third variation, but I'm not convinced that the variation in the size of the gap is consistent enough to be classified. Some 'small' gaps are too small to be seen with a magnifier on some stamps!
I almost agree with Ian's comment. A Type number for iridescent overprints is an unnecessary complication. Even 'whole words' as he suggests.
There are only 3 variables: 1. presence of source code; 2. presence of year code; 3. absence of one or both of the above. The fact that a code letter may appear in different positions on successive printings (eg the 1st Large discussed here) is irrelevant as no single stamp exists in more than one version ie the stamp from the 2009 booklet will always have the code in the same position even if it is not in the same word as on the 2010 printing.
A simple two-part code therefore gives the 'signature' of each stamp; 'x' (substituting the appropriate code letter for X of course) for point 1. above / '10' for point 2. (next year it will be '11' and so on) / '-' for an absence of code.
Thus 2009 counter sheets will be - / - whereas the recent reprint in 2010 of the 1st class with year code will be - / 10. The Large stamps in 2009 booklets will be F / - and those in the 2010 reprint F / 10.
It doesn't matter on the recent business sheet that the code is in a different word on a different line: the original was B / -, the new one B / 10. If reprinted in 2011, it will be B / 11 and so on.
Good points! But what if Royal Mail decide to move or change the goal posts again?
Perhaps if and when it happens is the answer to this question.
I have enjoyed the the time debating on the subject.
Like I said earlier I would like Douglas Myall to get involved, what ever he decides on I will take as gospal. He does compile the Machin Bible so pun intended.
Post a Comment